Keir Starmer has acknowledged that no impact assessment was conducted regarding the decision to reduce winter fuel payments for 10 million pensioners. This admission raises concerns about the potential effects on vulnerable elderly individuals who rely on this financial support during the colder months.
Sir Keir Starmer admitted last night that his government had not conducted an assessment of the risks associated with withdrawing Winter Fuel Payments from an estimated 10 million pensioners. Despite numerous warnings, including from Labor while in opposition, that this unpopular decision could potentially lead to significant harm, including increased mortality among the elderly, no impact assessment has been produced.
When questioned by reporters en route to Washington, Starmer was unable to provide the impact assessment—a report typically prepared by civil servants to evaluate the potential risks and benefits of major policy decisions—regarding the controversial means-testing of energy bill subsidies.
The Prime Minister stated that the impact of withdrawing Winter Fuel Payments would be mitigated by low-income pensioners receiving pension credit. However, he admitted, “There isn’t a report on my desk which somehow we’re not showing.” When further pressed on whether this implied the absence of an impact assessment, he reiterated, “There isn’t a report on my desk.”
When informed that there was a legal requirement for the government to carry out an impact assessment, Sir Keir Starmer responded that this was “not actually true.” The Prime Minister reiterated, “I know you think there’s a report on my desk but there isn’t one.”
Downing Street has clarified that there is no obligation for departments to conduct impact assessments for policies costing less than £10 million. However, the Guardian reported that some assessment of the potential impact on race, gender, and age was done regarding the removal of Winter Fuel Payments for those not receiving benefits.
There was a legal duty to consider the “equality implications” of policy changes, and this was carried out as usual, assessing the demographic characteristics of those claiming Winter Fuel Payments, such as age and gender. An official statistical publication also estimated the number of households in fuel poverty. However, a spokeswoman confirmed that no specific assessment was made regarding how the change might impact individuals with health difficulties or those who are particularly vulnerable.
When asked if an assessment should have been conducted to determine if the change might result in increased mortality among the elderly, the spokeswoman emphasized the government’s commitment to ensuring vulnerable individuals receive appropriate support. She noted efforts to encourage pensioners to apply for pension credit and other available support, stating that the decision to adjust Winter Fuel Payments was a necessary measure to address public finance concerns.
In 2017, Labor warned that the Conservative plans to means-test the Winter Fuel Allowance could lead to nearly 4,000 additional deaths. Additionally, a motion in the House of Lords expressing regret over the decision to remove the allowance from 10 million pensioners was passed with 164 votes in favor and 132 against. Former Brexit Party MEP Baroness Fox of Buckley criticized the debate as contributing to “boomer bashing.”
A Downing Street spokesman stated that while ministers have a legal duty to consider the equalities implications of policy developments, including the demographic characteristics of those affected, this assessment is part of routine advice. The spokeswoman added that while some statistical work was completed, no specific impact assessment was done on the effect of the change on vulnerable pensioners. For policy changes implemented through secondary legislation, like the alteration to winter fuel payment eligibility, regulatory impact assessments are only required if the cost exceeds £10 million, which was not the case here.
The non-affiliated peer criticized the decision, stating, “In this instance, the nice party, I’m afraid, is in danger of having stirred up quite a lot of antagonism and hatred towards a generation who deserve better – ordinary working people, who just happen to be old.”
In the House of Lords, a “regret motion” proposed by the Conservatives was supported by 164 votes to 132, with a majority of 32. The administration had previously defeated a Conservative backbench attempt to block the measure entirely, with a vote of 138 to 30, achieving a majority of 108.
